Yesterday I watched this three-part series on the accents of English-speaking North America:
The videos are by dialect coach Erik Singer and, I must say, his ability to fluidly move through all of North America's accents is incredibly impressive. As I was watching the videos, I kept thinking to myself, "I don't know what this guy actually sounds like when he's not putting on an accent."
The interesting thing about accents is that they really speak to settlement and migration patterns. In other words, who came in contact with who, and who didn't come in contact with others? Geographic isolation also leads to unique accents.
The other ingredient is time. The reason the UK, for example, has so any regional accents is that it had the time for them to develop. On the other hand, if you look to most of the southwestern United States, there is broadly a kind of generic American accent (with the exception of some California and Utah nuances according to Erik). This is because these settlements are relatively young compared to say the northeastern US.
For Canada, the defining feature is "Canadian raising". It is what leads to the stereotype of us saying things like "aboot" and "hoose". It doesn't sound exactly like this, but there is a way in which we tend to pronounce diphthongs (two adjacent vowel sounds) with open-vowel starting points.
Open-vowels are sounds where our tongue is positioned as far as possible from the roof of our mouth. If you try saying "about" to yourself out loud right now you'll notice that this is what happens. Your tongue drops. And it is these instances that lead to "Canadian raising".
The other thing that I find fascinating is how quickly language convergence can happen. I lived in Philadelphia for 3 years (for grad school) and when I would come home my parents used to tell me that I sounded fully American. I guess subconsciously we feel a need to assimilate.
If you're also fascinated by accents, I highly recommend you check out Erik's videos.
So apparently Lyft is the largest bikeshare operator in North America. They operate around 68,000 bikes and scooters, which equaled some 52 million rides last year. Ridership also continues to grow. Since 2020, ridership has grown in cities like New York (+56%), Chicago (+79%), Boston (82%), and Denver (+170%).
However, this part of Lyft's business was in the news this week because the company announced that they are entertaining proposals to sell it, as well as "strategic partnerships." The company has said that it remains committed to offering bikes through the Lyft app, but clearly it is trying to shore up its balance sheet.
This raises some interesting questions. Can bikeshare be a profitable and sustainable for-profit business? Or do we now need to be thinking of it as an important public service that is deserving of subsidies -- similar to how public transit and cars/roads work in most cities? My own view is that these networks are here to stay regardless of how profitable or unprofitable they might be.
For additional stats on Lyft's bikeshare business, click here. One of the figures that I found interesting, but not surprising, was that 71% of riders use bikeshare for "fun." This is by far the most popular use case. The next most popular use is "errands" at 39%.
Consider the following stat: 65% of all transit trips across the US in 2019 came from just 6 metro areas: New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia. Not surprisingly, these are all places with dense and walkable urban centers. In other words, they have built environments that are conducive to the use of public transportation.
While we know that more people working from home has been bad for transit and that agencies across the world are facing deep holes in their budget, I continue to come back to two things. One, we have not yet reached a post-pandemic equilibrium. We are still making our way back to the office. And two, the single most important thing when it comes to transit ridership is land use.
If we want more people to take transit, then we need to build our cities accordingly. That means streets people actually want to walk on, and a lot more density.